But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?

The D800 is almost 3 stops better than the 5D3 @ ISO100 (DR). Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car... And up to (and including) ISO400 the difference is still at least 1 stop. So yeah I call that "being crushed".

The only part where Canon really kicks ass imo (except for lenses) is their autofocus system. But this is only true for their 2 most expensive cameras i.e. 5D3 and 1Dx (only talking about their current camera lineup). Don't get me wrong. I like Canon a lot (held a D7000 in my hands recently and I didn't like the grip at all), but it makes me sad to see how bad their sensors are compared to the sensors of the competition.

Maybe you're right, Canon cannot compete at low ISO with noise and DR. But Nikon cannot compete at high ISO with Canon, not even close. This aspect is much, much more important to myself, being a sports photographer. Everyone has different needs. Sensor tech lower? Okay, but in real-life I choose not to buy the D4 simply because I get a much higher keeper rate with the 1D X. The argument has to go both ways. I understand that low ISO and DR are much, much more important to others. Why is it okay that Nikon doesn't compete at high ISO but not okay that Canon doesn't compete at low ISO? They both lack one or the other. And please I cannot take another chart. The D4 vs. 1DX issue has already been tested in the field thoroughly in real-life.

I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value. People also know that raising ISO means more noise and less DR. Keeping those things in mind, I think that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?

The D800 is almost 3 stops better than the 5D3 @ ISO100 (DR). Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car... And up to (and including) ISO400 the difference is still at least 1 stop. So yeah I call that "being crushed".

The only part where Canon really kicks ass imo (except for lenses) is their autofocus system. But this is only true for their 2 most expensive cameras i.e. 5D3 and 1Dx (only talking about their current camera lineup). Don't get me wrong. I like Canon a lot (held a D7000 in my hands recently and I didn't like the grip at all), but it makes me sad to see how bad their sensors are compared to the sensors of the competition.

Maybe you're right, Canon cannot compete at low ISO with noise and DR. But Nikon cannot compete at high ISO with Canon, not even close. This aspect is much, much more important to myself, being a sports photographer. Everyone has different needs. Sensor tech lower? Okay, but in real-life I choose not to buy the D4 simply because I get a much higher keeper rate with the 1D X. The argument has to go both ways. I understand that low ISO and DR are much, much more important to others. Why is it okay that Nikon doesn't compete at high ISO but not okay that Canon doesn't compete at low ISO? They both lack one or the other. And please I cannot take another chart. The D4 vs. 1DX issue has already been tested in the field thoroughly in real-life.

I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value. People also know that raising ISO means more noise and less DR. Keeping those things in mind, I think that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

+1 The older 1D Pro models had an ISO limit of 3200 and yet Professionals managed to get the job done (indoor sporting events etc.) without having the option of ISO 6400 or 10,800 etc. I never really shoot above ISO 1600 and for those fortunate 1DX or 5D3 owners that do shoot at high ISO levels I would just ask what % of their shots are >ISO 3200?

I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value.

If? How does that work, exactly? A scene has a given amount of light. At ISO 100 with the widest aperture usable for the required DoF (or the widest available on the lens), that means a given shutter speed. If that's not fast enough to freeze motion, one can add light (frequently not an option), raise ISO, accept a blurry shot, or give up and go home. Maybe your 195,000 € car budget could be used to buy a magic wand that alters optical physics?

... that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

Which people? You? Not me. I shoot indoors in ambient light a lot. Much of my outdoor shooting is birds/wildlife at dawn and dusk or under overcast skies, often at f/5.6 or f/8 (and please don't suggest a faster lens - I'm using a 600mm f/4L IS II with a 1.4xIII or 2xIII for the necessary reach). So for me, without access to that magic wand, the lowest ISO I can often get away with is 1600, and I'm usually at ISO 3200 - 6400. I can't live with bad ISO performance.

I don't know where the better high ISO performance argument comes from. Traditionally, Canon had the higher resolution while Nikon had better high ISO capabilities. The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).

The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).

That maybe. but the very fact that 1dx is pitted against at least three other dslrs - D800, D3s(?), D4 in shadow noise, Low light, God-knows-what-other-features in that order, in-fact, speaks a lot about 1dx. Don't you think?

The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).

That maybe. but the very fact that 1dx is pitted against at least three other dslrs - D800, D3s(?), D4 in shadow noise, Low light, God-knows-what-other-features in that order, in-fact, speaks a lot about 1dx. Don't you think?

Pitted against the d3s and d4 - at least on DxO - to me this means they are basically in the same league. This is actually good news, but not the kind of "trashing" that the thread starter hints at. Once invested in lenses, there is no reason whatsoever to switch from one brand to the other, at least not for the kind of work these cameras are intended for.

Landscape/architecture/interiours is a different matter. I made the switch for my own work last year, because the high DR of Nikons does make a significant difference in post-production. That said, we use a number of Canon bodies in our workshops, because much better price/performance ratio, and better availability/service where I live.

I don't know where the better high ISO performance argument comes from. Traditionally, Canon had the higher resolution while Nikon had better high ISO capabilities. The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).

But...crushed? If we believe DxOMark Scores as gospel (meaning we care about DR and color depth only at ISO 100, and we reduce all of our images to 8 MP), then a 13-14 point difference means less than a 1 stop advantage. That's crushing?

The D800 is almost 3 stops better than the 5D3 @ ISO100 (DR). Considering that each stop extra, is the same as "twice as much", I call the difference HUGE. Let's go out and buy a car. Your budget is 30.000 euro and mine is approximately 90.000 euro. Let's see who will have the nicest car... And up to (and including) ISO400 the difference is still at least 1 stop. So yeah I call that "being crushed".

The only part where Canon really kicks ass imo (except for lenses) is their autofocus system. But this is only true for their 2 most expensive cameras i.e. 5D3 and 1Dx (only talking about their current camera lineup). Don't get me wrong. I like Canon a lot (held a D7000 in my hands recently and I didn't like the grip at all), but it makes me sad to see how bad their sensors are compared to the sensors of the competition.

Maybe you're right, Canon cannot compete at low ISO with noise and DR. But Nikon cannot compete at high ISO with Canon, not even close. This aspect is much, much more important to myself, being a sports photographer. Everyone has different needs. Sensor tech lower? Okay, but in real-life I choose not to buy the D4 simply because I get a much higher keeper rate with the 1D X. The argument has to go both ways. I understand that low ISO and DR are much, much more important to others. Why is it okay that Nikon doesn't compete at high ISO but not okay that Canon doesn't compete at low ISO? They both lack one or the other. And please I cannot take another chart. The D4 vs. 1DX issue has already been tested in the field thoroughly in real-life.

I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value. People also know that raising ISO means more noise and less DR. Keeping those things in mind, I think that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

+1 The older 1D Pro models had an ISO limit of 3200 and yet Professionals managed to get the job done (indoor sporting events etc.) without having the option of ISO 6400 or 10,800 etc. I never really shoot above ISO 1600 and for those fortunate 1DX or 5D3 owners that do shoot at high ISO levels I would just ask what % of their shots are >ISO 3200?

NO NO NO!

This is not what I'm arguing. And no, they didn't get the job done. There are new shots that you can NOW get that you couldn't previously get with 35mm DSLR's. I'm tired of using this example, but it is one of many. Take for instance my shot of an interception at ISO 25,600, where I still had my shutter at 1/2000s at f/2.8 with a 300 f/2.8L lens. Just 6 months ago I could NOT get that shot. I could have shot at 1/400th, but parts would have been blurry. Did I absolutely NEED to go 1/2000s? No, but the point is, is that I did because I could. In this case, nothing was blury and it was razor sharp. ISO 100 has no value to me at all in this case. I got the shot. The shot got printed at 10 x 14 and put in the football hallway as a wall photo.

DB though, you are right about asking the % of shots, but that's not my point. My point is that there are a greater number of shots possible today vs. even just 6 months ago, due to high ISO performance. Low ISO performance does not add value to me and I've used my own examples. I'm sure better low ISO performance DOES add value to a great many photographers, to your argument's credit. But I am one of many who are not in the market for low ISO monsters because they are useless to us. Every camera can shoot at low ISO, but not nearly all of them can at high ISO's. That is absolutely all I am trying to say and I'm not doing a this camera is better than that camera deal. I am saying some cameras are better for a suited task than others, and it goes both ways.

Your statement about living with bad high ISO doesn't even remotely apply to me, because I cannot for the type of photography I am trying to accomplish. However, I do understand what you are saying for the majority of photographers.

I don't know where the better high ISO performance argument comes from. Traditionally, Canon had the higher resolution while Nikon had better high ISO capabilities. The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).

No they don't. The D4 doesn't even have as high of ISO capabilities as the 1DX. I'm tired of charts and scores, this is experience-based. Sorry. If you want to prove me wrong, go out on a poorly lit football field this fall. Shoot each camera at ISO 25,600 and tell me which camera has better high ISO capabilities.

I don't know where the better high ISO performance argument comes from. Traditionally, Canon had the higher resolution while Nikon had better high ISO capabilities. The 3Ds is still the best performing low-light camera (with the 1Dx just catching up).

No they don't. The D4 doesn't even have as high of ISO capabilities as the 1DX. I'm tired of charts and scores, this is experience-based. Sorry. If you want to prove me wrong, go out on a poorly lit football field this fall. Shoot each camera at ISO 25,600 and tell me which camera has better high ISO capabilities.

Who can afford to buy a D4 and a 1DX plus lenses? For me, numbers reported by DxO proved to be fairly accurate in practice. For example, I do see the 2EV difference between RAWs from the MK II and the d7000 (well, closer to 1 2/3 stops) when pushing shadows in LR. Similarly, I do see close to a stop advantage to the MK II when it comes to low-light performance. Look, I don't want to convince you - and obviously I can't. You're happy with what you have, and that's fine. Happy shooting

I think the camera that Canon really jumped over Nikon with was the 5D3, when pitted against the D800 most photographers will find the 5D3 more useable. Sure, the D800 has it's uses, but for a more narrow segment of the photographers out there. The 1Dx vs. D4 is probably a close race over all, feature for feature.

So that leaves the 6D vs. D600, and I'd say the D600 really compares more to the 5D3 feature for feature, and when you factor in the price, may be a better buy. So in the end, over all Nikon may still have a better lineup of full-frame cameras to appeal to the widest group of photographers. Canon has limited the 6D so much that it's opened the door for Nikon to market the D600 to photographers who are looking at choosing between the 6D & 5D3, they can get the D600 and not have to choose, effectively. Sure, the 5D3 is built better and probably performs better over all, but when it comes to marketing to the widest possible number of photographers, the fact that the D600 has most of the key features in common at a much lower price tag means it will have a wider target market.

Nikon sold a total of: 3,450,000 interchangeable cameras (up 720k from same period previous year) 4,770,000 interchangeable lenses (up 840k from same period previous year) 8,260,000 compact cameras (up 400k from same period previous year)

So interchangeable cameras sales are up 26% compared to same period last year and lenses are up 21%.Which is pretty amazing stuff. Nikon cameras and lenses are absolutely flying out the door. Even their compacts are UP 5% in the face of a general (significant) downturn in that area.

It's difficult to do a direct comparison with Canon, as Canon includes their inkjet printers in the corresponding division (!), but they sure aren't showing the same kind of upward surge. Not even close.

Nikon Imaging's lower operating income in spite of a considerable increase in turnover is most likely a result of increased costs incurred as a result of the Tsunami and the Thai floods.

I think that most people would always like to use the lowest possible ISO value. If they could freeze motion at ISO100, they would use that ISO value.

If? How does that work, exactly? A scene has a given amount of light. At ISO 100 with the widest aperture usable for the required DoF (or the widest available on the lens), that means a given shutter speed. If that's not fast enough to freeze motion, one can add light (frequently not an option), raise ISO, accept a blurry shot, or give up and go home. Maybe your 195,000 € car budget could be used to buy a magic wand that alters optical physics?

... that's the reason why people can rather live with bad high ISO performance. It's more logical that the low ISO performance is great than that the high ISO performance is great.

Which people? You? Not me. I shoot indoors in ambient light a lot. Much of my outdoor shooting is birds/wildlife at dawn and dusk or under overcast skies, often at f/5.6 or f/8 (and please don't suggest a faster lens - I'm using a 600mm f/4L IS II with a 1.4xIII or 2xIII for the necessary reach). So for me, without access to that magic wand, the lowest ISO I can often get away with is 1600, and I'm usually at ISO 3200 - 6400. I can't live with bad ISO performance.

Your 'logic' seems to have a high level of personal bias...

Why such an aggressive attitude in your post? I know it's not possible, that's why the sentence is started with the word "if". And no it's not personal bias. Most of my shots are at ISO800-1600. I would rather have them shot at ISO100 but that's not an option. So I like very good performance at high ISO (hence the reason why I'm probably going to buy the 6D), but I also want very good performance at ISO100. And the latter is where Canon is trailing behind...